Posted on 07/28/2007 6:00:30 PM PDT by blam
1m-years-old footprints found at Margalla Hills
By Sher Baz Khan
ISLAMABAD, July 27: In what appears to be a major discovery, archaeologists have found two over one million years old human footprints preserved on a sandstone at the Margalla Hills.
The Indusians Research Cell, which is working under the supervision of world renowned archaeologist and historian Dr Ahmad Hassan Dani of Taxila Institute of Asian Civilisations, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, has made the discovery, which is likely to add a new chapter to the archaeological history and heritage of the federal capital and attract visitors.
A footprint of 1 feet is in complete and well preserved form while another is broken from the finger side which is also of the same size in comparative manner. The notable marks of the feet are the clear veins and opposite folded appearance.
“A huge stone on the top of the hill is the secure home of these prints since about over one million years ago,” says A.K. Azad, an archaeologist and head of the project.
Further research may give more clues of the foot marks through anthropological and geophysical methods, he observed.
The recent discovery is the continuity of the Indusian Research Cell’s earlier research about human evolution which previously revealed a fossilised upper jaw from the site of Dhudhumber, foot and hand prints from Attock and Palaeolithic cave from Margalla hills.
Pakistan’s geomorphologic research was conducted to compare with the Alps of Europe during the period of 1930-1939 by a French mission. Since then, lots of other dimensions of the research opened the doors of scientific research in Pakistan as the country provided the glacial sequence, fossilised evidences of Pre-Cambrian to Holocene epochs, earliest evidences of the anthropoid existence, earliest cultural centre at Mehargarh (contemporary of Jericho and Jarmo) and most advanced civilisation of the world (Indus valley).
Indusians Research Cell started the second phase of the project “Post-earthquake Explorations of Human Remains in Margalla Hills” under the supervision of A.K. Azad.
According to Mr Azad the formation of the Margalla Hills goes back to the Miocene epoch. The dominant limestone of the Margalla is also mixed with the sand stone.
“So we can assume that due to availability of the water in ancient times many marks of the zoological as well botanical significance may lead to our objectives,” the young archaeologist hopes.
In 1976, Pakistan opened another chapter of human evolution, which makes case for Asian anthropoid origin from this region.
During the ‘60s and ‘70s, Pilbeam led expeditions to the Siwalik Hills badlands of northern Pakistan, searching for further Ramapithecine remains.
In March 1975 and January 1976 team members made surface recoveries of four bone fragments which fit together to form the most complete mandible recovered yet. The mandible shows that Ramapithecus did not have a parabolic, human like dental arcade, as originally thought, but rather a V-shaped, more apelike arcade. Though the shape of the arcade is not now regarded as one of the more anatomically important characters, Ramapithecus is no longer granted the high status that it once received.
Different scholars have defined the word ‘Potohar’ differently. But, anthropological research marked it, as the grand father of hominid, also known as Punjabicus found from the Potohar region.
So the government of Pakistan had given the name to this specie Potoharmans.
According to Mr Azad, the problem of human evolution is still hanging around that when and where Anthropoid got physical changes from the Apes?
After India, Kenya and China, he says important discovery was from the Potohar region from fossils of the similar species found in 1976 and 1982. The probable dating given to this specie was 20 million years.
“It has provided a missing link, which was spread of 6 million years. So Potoharmans declared as the grand father of hominid, which evolved from the different stages and reached at the Homo sapiens,” he observes.
The stories behind the similar marks are also significant in mythical associations with saints and renowned people i.e. hand prints of the Baba Guru Nanik near Hassanabdal, foot prints of Hazrat Ali in Hyderabad, foot prints of the Guru Padma Sambhava (Second reincarnation of Buddha) in Swat, Adam’s peak of Sri Lanka etc.
“If these are true than we can also claim of the mother Eve’s foot prints from Margalla Hills,” Mr Azad observed.
FWIW Buddhism is not a philosophy. At first blush it may sound like one but it doesn't fit any of the ten definitions in my dictionary.
At any rate if science looked into Buddhism they might learn something. Over 2,000 years ago Buddhist masters described atoms, sub-atomic particle and the yet-to-be-noticed-by-science "subtle-particles" that make up sub-atomic particles. They also described the illusory nature of time that Einstein hinted at and physicists have begun to snap to.
For new folks, Ichneumon is a legendary FR poster who posts now only rarely. He was known for his lengthy, and meticulously researched posts. So that you may understand the reference, here are a few links to "Fully-Ichnys."
And especially:
-OR- Hospitals, public "free" Schools(Universities), many philanthropic venues and other charitable organizations.. very likely no female liberation(freedom), anti-slavery, or United States of America <<- which generated world wide approval of many of these things and more than those..
NO judeo-christianity, and this world would be quite different..
Its true that so-called christians have caused some maleficence/harm..
But all told, judeo-christianity has been a benefit to social and finacial structure..
Buddhism is a variation of Hinduism.. which stemmed from Brahmanism.. which is similar to ancient Babylonian polytheism.. They are all similar in concept..
What I would call Buddhist philosophy -- I wouldn't call it theology or science -- is on view in a wonderful recent movie, Jet Li's Fearless. I highly recommend it.
Oddly enough, roughly contemporaneous with the insights of the early Buddhist thinkers, the Greeks were (independently) coming up with many of the same ideas, WRT atoms (e.g., Democritus and Leucippus) and, arguably, thermodynamics theory (e.g., Heraclitus).
Wasn't it the historian Karl Jaspers who envisioned the concept of the "axis time?" So many of the same sort of intellectual and spiritual outbursts were occurring in widely separated cultural centers roughly in the same period, circa 500 B.C., exemplars being Socrates, Confucius, Gautama the Buddha. Maybe it's just a coincidence.
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts TigersEye....
That’s not true, hosepipe. I don’t care who told you that its origins, its aims and its methodology is quite different. It appears the same because it borrowed cultural icons from those things. None of those things are essential to it.
I wouldn't either. It is different than all of those things. It is hard to call it a religion either. Many years ago my teacher, who had been a Buddhist for 21 years at that time, said he still hadn't decided whether it was a religion or not. It depends upon how loosely you define the word I guess. I am glad that it is considered that on the whole as it affords it 1st Amendment protections. Christianity may be the whipping boy these days but you know how that goes; today's golden boy is tomorrow's goat. It is a spiritual tradition though no doubt about that. The communists have shown that they don't like it any better than any other faith.
...is on view in a wonderful recent movie, Jet Li's Fearless. I highly recommend it.
I love Jet Li so will definitely look for that. I have yet to see any Hollywood movie that really depicts Buddhism in any realistic manner. Kundun is a very accurate portrayal of the Dalai Lama in childhood and the heirarchy of Lama's and Regents that surrounded him. It is accurate insofar as what is shown is realistic but it doesn't give one any idea what it is like to be an ordinary practitioner or what that entails. That would actually be pretty difficult (and boring) since it takes most students years to begin to see (glimpse) what it is about.
There is another fairly recent hop-and-chop that I liked a lot. I can't think of the name or the actor. He starts out as a monk in Tibet who holds a scroll that if read will destroy the world and the bad guy is a German (what else?) who chases him for years. As long as he holds the scroll he doesn't age. It is totally farflung fiction but his character carries an ethic in his actions that accords very well with what one might expect from a well trained Buddhist. Of course that is idealized as well as there is no one way to act and still be with the ethic. It's a movie. Wish the name would come to me.
I don't know who Karl Jaspers is but it doesn't surprise me that particular lines of thought occur at roughly the same time in disparate places. I have actually noticed that on the personal and on the historical level since I was very young. At about 15 I thought of a wave machine for surfing. The dream of a landlocked CO boy. None such existed. About a year later Popular Science had an article about one and since then many have been built.
I don't think Guatama Buddha talked about the illusion of time (maybe) but rather advanced meditators of a later era did.
Here is a rather thought provoking look at one aspect of the nature of thoughts. Be sure to scroll down and look at the pics.
"I did not aver that Einstein thought any of those things, b-sharp. That was your own hasty conclusion based on carelessly evaluated evidence and your own pre-disposition and preferred attitude.
Me:
Einstein did not believe in a personal God such as Jehovah.
BettyBoop:
"Still, for all that he said that, he speaks of "The Old One" when speaking of his own personal religious experience... I think The Old One is his name for the God Jehovah...."
What was that about not claiming Einstein thought something? Oh yes it was this:
"I did not aver that Einstein thought any of those things, b-sharp."
I guess you did 'aver' at least one of those things.
"Need I add that your own special brand of religious bigotry shines through your post?
Why, because I have a bias against people who make claims and then back them up by quote mining? That is hardly a bias against religion. It is a bias against some who want to manipulate the masses into believing their particular brand of anti-science nonsense.
I find it interesting that in a post where I disagree with your characterization of Einstein, you imply that you are the essential Christian and my disagreement with you is a disagreement with all of Christianity.
That is nonsense. My wife is Christian, along the lines of the more sensible IDists, my father is a Creationist who believes the Earth is 6000 years old, one younger brother is an OEC, the other is a reborn Christian. I love them all. But for some reason, because I am arguing against your liquid and slippery use of who should be included within your cabal of anti-science proponents, I am to be labeled as a Christian hater.
"(Though I did suggest Einstein seemed to think he had some sort of pipeline into the mind of The Old One. We can infer that from his own statements.)
We can, can we? Just which statements of his imply he felt he had a pipeline into the mind of the Old One?
"You seem to have some idea that people who believe in God are stupid morons. You seem to equate belief in God with membership in particular churches and creeds.
Do you ever read something without implanting your own biases into it? I can name quite a number of people I respect and find highly intelligent, far more so than I am, that do believe in a God. In fact, most of them believe in the Christian God. While I believe that religion restricts inquiry and produces hostile relationships where there needs to be none, I certainly do not consider someone who is religious or spiritual to be by default stupid.
I do find those that refuse to examine the evidence given them by science and those that engage in woo woo explanations of the universe and would rather change how science is practiced than change their concept of reality to be ignorant.
I also find those determined to get nonsense accepted, not by going the route of the scientific method but by trying end runs around the system, to be essentially dishonest. This bias is not only against YECs and some IDists but against purveyors of medical nonsense like homeopathy, Chiropractics, 'Living Water ' and the uncountable varieties of related 'newage' pseudo-science. They are misleading, dangerous, demeaning and waste billions of dollars which could be spent on real science.
"Probably you could give a pass to a "religious" person, provided he were Buddhist. (A beautiful religion, BTW, but IMO not completely complete or "true.") To Christians, you give no quarter.
More nonsense. Read my statements above.
You seem to be more interested in making this an argument about me than in arguing the original post of yours I responded to which was about your misinterpretation of Einstein and your unfounded claims about his religious beliefs.
I guess there is some utility in ignoring your mistake, avoiding admission of that mistake and redirecting the focus to me.
Then again it isn't really honest is it?
"Yet in all likelihood, there would be no science at all, had Christianity never come into the world. (It is doubtful science could logically obtain or evolve from Buddhist philosophy.) You bite the hand that feeds you, and seemingly declare it a "victory" every time....
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that other cultures, including all of those non-Christian based cultures have contributed nothing to science? Wow. Or are you now claiming that the Chinese, Indian, Greek, Egyptian, Roman, Muslim and others are all somehow Christian?
The Christian religion, depending on the era has been just as instrumental in retarding the rate of discovery as it has in enhancing it. Don't be so selective in which Christian era you consider when evaluating the impact of that religion on science.
It appears that you are the one who has a bias against religions other than Christianity, at least where scientific accomplishment and the contribution of knowledge is concerned.
"You wrote:
His spirituality and belief in an impersonal God figure, which I suspect is closer to that of Spinoza than of yours, who started the universe then sat back and watched it unfold, is hardly the same as your belief in a God who created the Earth in 7 days ~6,000 years ago.
"Time out. Have you ever directly visited Spinoza's philosophical musings? (You should, if you care at all about Einstein's personal philosophical predilections.) His entire system is built out of 19 principles, each successive one depending for its own legitimacy on the validity of the one (or cumulation of ones from the original one) that precedes it. But the first principle, on which all the other 18 ultimately rest, does not itself have a demonstrated ground in truth. We might just as well call it a conjecture, or even a speculation. And the funny thing is, the entire course of its subsequent development is of the sort to prove the validity of the initial premise. Go figure."
Whether or not you like Spinoza's philosophy, or consider it valid in any way, Einstein based his religious views on a combination of Spinoza and Schopenhauer.
The argument is not about the validity of Spinoza or Schopenhauer but of how their ideas influenced Einstein. Trying to make it about Spinoza's validity is just a bit of a red herring on your part.
"The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another."
Guess who made the above comment.
How about the following:
I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.
"Better that you go read Spinoza than accept my testimony. Still, my view is: His is a magnificent edifice of human thought and imagination. Fundamentally, I'd describe it as an "artificial construct," one that is logically internally consistent.
"But -- is it true? It seems devoid of any logos by which it may be appraised, and incapable of contact with the real flesh and blood of actuality and human experience, personal and cultural.
I repeat:
The argument is not about the validity of Spinoza or Schopenhauer but of how their ideas influenced Einstein. Trying to make it about Spinoza's validity is just a bit of a red herring on your part.
BTW, are you aware that Einstein wrote a poem about Spinoza?
How much do I love that noble man
More than I could tell with words
I fear though he'll remain alone
With a holy halo of his own.
Let's take a look at one of the comments you made in the previous post, it was about the title of an Einstein biography called "Subtle is the Lord". The complete short quote is:
Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.
Now they way you presented that quote it was obvious you were attempting to use it as a validation (there's that word again) of your opinion of Einstein's religious beliefs in a personal God. But you didn't include what he meant by the statement. No problem, I will do it here.
"Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse."
Funny thing is, that explanation was in the same book you mentioned - "Subtle is the Lord — The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (1982) by Abraham Pais".
"Plus I never said that I believe in a "~6,000 to ~10,000 age for the Universe and the Earth." I gather you think that since I'm a Christian and therefore so benighted, dumb, and inarticulate, that you have every right (even a duty perhaps), not only to complete my sentences for me, but to make them up in the first place.
I apologize. I did make an unwarranted assumption based on your vocal defense of the Noachian flood. I was wrong.
"Continuing: You wrote "What exactly do you believe that comment means?" (i.e., the quote in my last, for which you kindly provided the expanded text).
"I just wonder in what way you can possibly evaluate either mine or the "fuller statement" in light of "rational naturalistic methodologies." Einstein is first of all not speaking of "rational" things (see quote); and they are "naturalistic" only in the sense that they actually do occur -- rountinely -- in Nature -- which after all, includes human nature.
First off let's re-introduce the context. The full quote of my words on naturalistic methodologies is as follows:
"I don't care whether Einstein was an atheist, or an agnostic, or a deist, or a Biblical literalist for that matter. What I do care about is the contribution to science which he made, incidentally, through the use of rational naturalistic methodologies."
If you will read the entire quote you will see I was referring to his science accomplishments as being based on rational naturalistic methodologies, not his religious views.
My comment "What exactly do you believe that comment means?" is only related to the above quote by being in the same post. They were answers to two different comments of yours.
"But that's the sort of stuff that positivists want to send down the rathole of human memory....
In what way was Einstein not a Positivist?
Personally, I'm more of a post-James Pragmatist
"In conclusion, it seems clear we have a serious "observer problem" going on here.
What is the "Observer Problem"?
"We two are not even on the same page.
Really? I disagree.
Now you're talking about things you know nothing about. I'm not a big fan of chiropractics but it works. Homeopathy works very well and has no potential for side effects. What more could you want?
Keep your spiritual ears open for the Master's call. And don't sweat the math, the structure is much more important.
Being open is the path.
...don't sweat the math, the structure is much more important.
It's all just phenomena. ; )
God created science.
....And science says there is no God
b_sharp should't have done that. That's your territory.
I don’t think we have. I think I have seen RightWhale’s posts on such things seperately though. I recall engaging with you on a physics related thread some time ago. It was very enjoyable but your depth of knowledge quickly outstripped my intuitive grasp of the subject. I don’t remember who they were but there were a couple of other posters who made it a very fun exercise too. Mental dancercize as it were.
I think you would enjoy reading RightWhale's insights - he sees things with two eyes, one as a physicist and the other as a philosopher.
Indeed, it took the main character in Fearless quite a long time to figure it out...and he paid a very high price for the wisdom....
There is another fairly recent hop-and-chop that I liked a lot. I can't think of the name or the actor.
I hope you'll remember the name of the film, and let me know when you do. It sounds fascinating!
Thanks for the link, TigersEye, and for writing!
What is clear is that we disagree, and disagreeably. Time for a time-out.
best wishes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.